Part 116: Atonement Theologies, Part 3: Further Problems with Satisfaction Atonement

Last week, we considered how satisfaction atonement theory and moral
influence theory attribute Jesus' death to God, which is problematic.
Satisfaction atonement theories have additional difficulties. They assume that
justice and righting of wrongs involve some kind of retribution. According to
this framework, the problem with sin is that it causes an imbalance, a
disturbance of the moral order of the universe. The only way to restore
balance is through punishment, which may involve death.

J. Denny Weaver has noted that this framework, articulated by Anselm in 1098
and later modified by the Protestant Reformers, has parallels with the medieval
worldview. The feudal king's power resided in a belief that the king had divine
authority. Those who dishonored the king must be punished in order to restore
the moral order, because to offend the king was tantamount to offending God.
Sinning against God caused the greatest disturbance to the order, which occurred
repeatedly on account of human sinfulness. Only the most extreme punishment
could restore the moral order, and the Son, as God incarnate, fulfilled this
need. So it seems that Anselm's satisfaction atonement theory evolved out of the
medieval worldview.

Often people describe violent retribution as "justice" or "upholding the
law," but retribution undeniably involves violence. Therefore, Weaver has
concluded, "any and all versions of atonement . assume the violence of
retribution or justice based on punishment, and depend on God-induced and
God-directed violence." With God involved in violence and punishment, it becomes
easier for Christians to justify their own violence and punishment. In addition,
satisfaction atonement theories accommodate violence, because they treat
humankind's sinfulness in terms of humankind's relationship with God.
Satisfaction atonement theories treat sin as a legal problem - humankind's
offense against God - rather than as a social problem. The theories do not
articulate the problem in terms of society's institutions or events of human
history (other than Original Sin). Consequently, satisfaction atonement theories
do not challenge unjust human institutions, making it easier for Christians to
countenance violence and/or injustice. With the rise of satisfaction atonement
theology, Christianity's focus changed from what Jesus did and taught to what
was needed to preserve "Christian society." Since Christians have regarded the
Church as the embodiment of God, defending the Church has often taken precedence
over defending vulnerable individuals. Furthermore, there have been many times
when kings and other despots have subverted the notion of "Christian society" to
serve their own selfish desires. In such settings, the Church itself has become
the "principalities" and "powers" (Ephesians 6:12) that have worked against God.
Although Jesus taught that we should show love and mercy in all our
relationships, satisfaction atonement theories have changed the focus of sin
from injustice against individuals to offense against God and "God's Church."
Consequently, Christianity evolved into a religion that has (at various times in
history) accommodated slavery, subjugation of women, cruelty to animals, and
other unjust social arrangements.

Social reformers have pointed out another difficulty with satisfaction
atonement theories. These theories portray Jesus as one who was innocent yet
voluntarily submitted to suffering. This has often been an obstacle to people
who suffer as a consequence of unjust social structures, because victims of
abuse have often been told to model their behavior on Jesus' voluntary
suffering. For example, some religious authorities have advised victims of
domestic violence to bear their burden rather than to pursue paths that might
alleviate their situation.

Additionally, satisfaction atonement theories are problematic in that they
adopt the logic of Caiaphas, who, in trying to convince chief priests and
Pharisees to call for Jesus' execution, said, "it is expedient for you that one
man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish"
(John 11:50).

Satisfaction atonement theories posit that it is indeed better for one
innocent man to die in order to save everyone else, which has been the logic of
sacrificial violence throughout human history. Indeed, one might wonder whether
satisfaction atonement theory presents Christianity as a new revelation, or
whether it presents Christianity as a minor variation on the perennial religious
theme that God (or the Gods) demands "sacred" sacrificial violence.

Finally, satisfaction atonement theories focus on Jesus' death and do not
require a theology about his life, teachings, or resurrection. Seeing the Bible
through a Girardian lens, Jesus' death is a critically important component of a
broader message that God wants us to love each other and to cease scapegoating
the innocent. Jesus' entire ministry points to the centrality of God's love,
which we can overlook if we focus on a single, violent event.

Next week, I will discuss an atonement theology articulated by J. Denny
Weaver (Cross Currents July 2001).